It depends how you define safe vs unsafe. He was doing nominally "safe" maneuvers with no margin of error left - that's how people die because we are all human and making inevitable mistakes - do it often enough without any margin of safety and , well .. you know the rest.

Flying low across the water's surface at high speed is an unsafe maneuver. The only time a pilot should fly that low over land or water would be at slow speed in the process of landing or taking off. A float plane will/can/might instantaneously flip over should it contact the water at high speed. I believe that is probably what happened. I got a seaplane rating a few years ago and we never had a need to fly close to the surface except to land or takeoff. Barring a catastrophic control failure, which seems unlikely, he would probably not have had the accident had he maintained a floor of 500 feet, or even 100 feet.

But I can say the maneuvering shown in the videos left precious little margin for error.

I just looked up the wingspan of an Icon A5: 34’. From the videos, I see him less than half a wingspan from the water at high speed - call it maybe 10’ to 20’, or even less. At that height the slightest inattention or distraction could lead to him contacting the water with the foreseen tragic results. As could an ever-so-slightly misjudged pullout from a wingover.

Yes, some of the non-pilots commenting were perhaps overestimating the danger of certain specific maneuvers they were witnessing. But they were not wrong in their overall assessment that they were witnessing very unusual, and perhaps dangerous, flying.

Edited to add: I composed and posted the above prior to reading the last two posts above, with which I concur.

zaitcev wrote:I remain in a firm disagreement with the prevailing outrage. The video that TMZ posted showed absolutely no unsafe maneuvering, and the laymen in the boat had absolutely no clue as to what they were looking at. He was coming in their direction, then used the saved energy to zoom to a safe altitude, turned carefully to the opposite heading, then descended gradually back to the surface. It's really strange that so many actual pilots are no better than boaters at this.

It was exactly the type of the maneuver that I would've performed if I wanted to turn around within the confines of a bay or other safe area. Now, I would be concerned if I saw him doing the same turn within a wingspan or two off the surface. It's too easy to slip if there's not enough back-pressure and there's not much time to take wings level and recover if you get slow. Or, I would not like seeing him circling. That would invite a moose stall, which can happen to the best of us (that's how Shawn Lunt died - a bright young man that flew quite well, but alas didn't realize how dangerous that maneuver was). But the maneuvering in the video was quite benign.

What else? Comparison to a fighter? But of course. People compared Sky Arrow to a fighter, too. It's a pusher airplane that has visibility of a fighter.

Having said all that, I agree that showboating could be a factor. It's one of those things that take careful planning and discipline, and even so the risk is undoubtedly elevated when operating in a proximity to surface or objects. It just does not follow for me that there's a casual chain that so many people imply, or even claim. It's a pure observation bias fallacy.

I tend to agree. He makes some turns pretty low to the water, but I have done that in my CTSW, there's nothing inherently dangerous about it if you are aware of your height, bank angle, and where your wingtips are in relation to the water. He also makes some abrupt pitch changes, but nothing dangerous and who knows what that was about. Maybe he was going to do something and changed his mind?

I have done some things in my airplane that some might consider "showboating". But that term implies an audience you are trying to impress, and I never do that. But I submit for your consideration the following video, which also involved two other CTs. I don't think anything in the video is particularly dangerous, despite the low altitude. This was done over an area that had been extensively surveyed and evaluated by one of the pilots before the flight, and took place over an unpopulated area:

TimTaylor wrote:Flying low across the water's surface at high speed is an unsafe maneuver. The only time a pilot should fly that low over land or water would be at slow speed in the process of landing or taking off. A float plane will/can/might instantaneously flip over should it contact the water at high speed. I believe that is probably what happened. I got a seaplane rating a few years ago and we never had a need to fly close to the surface except to land or takeoff. Barring a catastrophic control failure, which seems unlikely, he would probably not have had the accident had he maintained a floor of 500 feet, or even 100 feet.

I don't agree that flying low is unsafe in itself. It is how you fly when you are low that can be unsafe. I have close to 2000 hours flying tree top high, and sometimes lower flying pipeline patrol and buried telephone cable. It was how I was taught to do it, and I certainly didn't feel that it was unsafe. Granted if something happens you have fewer options, and less time to react. Where I was flying most of the time your options were about the same tree top high or at 3000 feet.

I used to fly power line patrol. It was relatively dangerous because we were just over the tree tops with nowhere to land but in the tree tops. We will just have to disagree on this. It is something I would not do now "just for the hell of it." I value my life more than that.

TimTaylor wrote:I used to fly power line patrol. It was relatively dangerous because we were just over the tree tops with nowhere to land but in the tree tops. We will just have to disagree on this. It is something I would not do now "just for the hell of it." I value my life more than that.

I think it is a perspective type thing. Where I was flying there were lots of options. Flat ground and lots of fields. I would feel differently flying over trees with no where to go. That is why I said flying low is not dangerous in itself. Add in risky maneuvering or no landing options then yes it is dangerous.

I bailed after holding position #745 for nearly six years. I will say, they lit my fire and moved me to fulfill my dream. It's really too bad what has happened to Icon, but I'm so grateful to them for inspiring me. BTW, they gave me a full refund - without any hassles - and told me they completely understood my reasons for moving on. It was handled very professionally.

I can only wish the Icon team the best. It would have been an awesome plane for Lake Chelan in Washington State.

Last edited by Paul_G on Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.